If that version is too complex for you, you can try this simplified table where many of the variables are pre calculated and more user friendly.http://www.mediafire.com/file/7wrkyslc1 ... Trial.xlsxFor filling guide for PRF and pulse width you can check the following table:

i took the initiative and try estimate APG-81 range with some assumed variables: T/R modules: 1626Peak power per module: 10W Operational wavelength: 2.5 cmAperture weighting: Cos^4Radar PRF: 10 Khz, Pulse width: 20 micro sec => Duty cycle: 20 %Scan time frame: 9 seconds for full field of regard.Scan field of regard: 120° azimuth, 10° elevation (with the same scan time frame, wider field of regard will result in shorter dwell time => shorter range)

I seem to recall an old post by Hornetfinn saying that given equal assumptions of target RCS and detection probability that the APG-81 likely matched or exceeded Irbis-E. That second one seems to pan out with that.

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:I seem to recall an old post by Hornetfinn saying that given equal assumptions of target RCS and detection probability that the APG-81 likely matched or exceeded Irbis-E. That second one seems to pan out with that.

Yes, that's the result I got from calculating using similar formulas, variables and constants. Basically all PESA and MSA radars have to combat about 6 dB higher losses in transmit and receive paths together and thus smaller and less powerful AESA can have equal or superior range performance. This is in situation where there is no interference (like EW) or clutter. When those are present, AESA will be much better due to many factors.

Nice to see someone make such a easy to use Excel calculator for AESA radar range calculations. I'm definitely going to use this from now on!

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:I seem to recall an old post by Hornetfinn saying that given equal assumptions of target RCS and detection probability that the APG-81 likely matched or exceeded Irbis-E. That second one seems to pan out with that.

The first one is volume searchThe second is cued search, so the detection range get much longer just like hornetfinn said.

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Is there one of these input variables that could be used to simulate that? What types of jamming even effect an AESA?

No, there isn't any input variable for that, although that might be simulated to some degree by adding jamming power to radar loss budget. That would simulate very wideband noise jamming effects. I don't think there is a way to simulate effects of other jammers with such a general calculator. We would need very detailed radar and jamming simulator to evaluate jamming effects.

hornetfinn wrote: I don't think there is a way to simulate effects of other jammers with such a general calculator. We would need very detailed radar and jamming simulator to evaluate jamming effects.

Yes... and no.Just like any other calculator the basic formulaes are (rather) simple and can be put in excel. I have used a few of those and they work fine. The problem is to know the caractheristics of the jammer. Ant that is something you won't find on the net.

eloise wrote:With the same duty cycle, detection range is longer by 12% if pulse width is the main contributor instead of PRF. Why?

Because the amount of energy delivered to target and then back to radar is a product of transmitted power and duration of pulse. So radar gets more powerful return signals when pulse width is longer. Higher PRF improves detection range to some degree, but pulse width affects range more. Of course things are not this simple and longer range is not always really wanted since it can affect other performance factors too much. Best overall performance is usually achieved by balancing PRF and pulse width.